e.Digital Shareholder Q&A with Robert Putnam -
posted on
Aug 11, 2010 07:39PM
Edit this title from the Fast Facts Section
emit - posted on Apr 19, 10 07:07PM
I ask Robert if Bang & Olufsen was still a licensing partner; especially since their BO2 seems the true design as-per our claims 'it won't work if the SD/CF card is remeoved' as I've always contended.
He said that we continue to receive quartly royalty checks from them.
````````````````````````````````````````
Dear Robert:
Is our current undisclosed eVU OEM helping us with the various new technology designs on the our
next-generation eVU?
Respectfully,
Tim Scott, Paducah, Ky
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
From: Robert Putnam <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: <no subject>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:16:24 -0700
Hi, Tim,
No... We are implementing the hardware, software and firmware upgrades and adding the technology
enhancements in-house.
Best regards,
Robert
Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President
e.Digital Corporation | 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San Diego, California 92127 | p: 858.304.3016
ext. 205 | f: 858.304.3023 | [email protected]
````````````````````````````````````````
Dear Robert
Would a Laptop computer possibly fall under our handheld/portable patent claims sometimes in the
future?
Respectfully,
Tim Scott, Paducah, Ky
From: Robert Putnam <[email protected]> View ContactAdd to Address Book | Block SenderFull
HeaderReply To:
To:"[email protected]" <[email protected]>Cc:
Bcc:
Sent: Tue, Apr 20, 2010 05:10
Possibly.
Thank you, Tim.
Best regards,
Robert
```````````````````````````````````````````````
doni's Q sent via me
Dear Robert:
Why should e.Digital not be a micro-controller/APIcode/cache supplier to Samsung, as, ie... Zoran
is/was? Is it not worth the effort?
Tim,
Our engineering team specializes in producing MicroOS™-based portable entertainment systems. We are
working to augment the scope of our markets and products through further monetizing our Flash-R™
patent portfolio.
Best regards,
Robert
Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President
e.Digital Corporation | 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San Diego, California 92127 | p: 858.304.3016
ext. 205 | f: 858.304.3023 | [email protected]
````````````````````````````````````````````
Dear Robert:
*Will the the new pending encription patent utilize our current MicroOS patent/s as a foundation?
*Is our MicroOS unique attributes the primary reason the eVU battery is able to achieve such
superior power retention?
Or is it a compilation of both battery ability and MOS.
It says, ''This battery has smarter electronics and a fuel gauge to test the charge''
http://www.zbattery.com/Laptop-Battery-10-8V-Li-Ion-SH202-DR202-Replacement
http://www.edigital.com/evu8.htm
Respectfully,
Tim Scott, Paducah, Ky
From: Robert Putnam <[email protected]> View ContactAdd to Address Book HeaderReply To:
To:"[email protected]" <[email protected]>Cc:
Bcc:
Sent: Mon, Apr 26, 2010 07:19 PM
Hi, Tim,
There are elements of MicroOS™ in the pending patent application. We achieve extended battery life
in our portable products because of the optimization and customization of hardware and firmware
with MicroOS.
Best regards,
Robert
Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President
e.Digital Corporation | 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San Diego, California 92127
| p: 858.304.3016 ext. 205 | f: 858.304.3023 | [email protected]
````````````````````````````````````````````
Dear Robert:
I want to thank you for answering my questions here-lately... again, Thank You.
*Is it possible that by utilizing elements of our MicroOS in the new Encription Patent; that then
if applied within a network of portable devices it could further secure and enhance the DRMs of
other companies?
*Since our TDL-dataloader is ethernet and eVU is a closed turn-key sysyem; can/is our OS working
with a higher OS which can be coupled to a partners wireless network?
*Is an eVU Kiosks a possibility to target the general population for leisure?
Respectfully,
Tim Scott, Paducah, Ky
From: Robert Putnam <[email protected]> View ContactAdd to Address Book
HeaderReply To:
To:"[email protected]" <[email protected]>Cc:
Bcc:
Sent: Wed, Apr 28, 2010 07:52 PMDownload All |
Hi, Tim,
Our encryption technology could work with other DRMs, but it would not provide enhanced security.
We are researching wireless content loading incorporating our proprietary loading method.
Delivering content-loaded eVUs through kiosks is one of the areas of interest we are exploring
through partnering efforts.
Best regards,
Robert
Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President
e.Digital Corporation | 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San Diego, California 92127 | p: 858.304.3016
ext. 205 | f: 858.304.3023 | [email protected]
`````````````````````````````````````````````
Dear Robert
Sanjay Mehrotra, co-founder and president flash memory vendor SanDisk recently said this pertaining
to NAND flash memory:
"From wireless handhelds to cameras, tablets and servers, NAND flash technology will be embedded in
billions of devices over the next 10 years, says Sanjay Mehrotra, co-founder and president flash
memory vendor SanDisk. And, as the number of devices using NAND technology increase, the
functionality and security of applications embedded in flash chip controllers will significantly
improve, he added."
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9176086/Flash_memory_set_to_benefit_from_mobile_Internet_exp
losion?source=rss_news
Is it possibly that MicroOS could have elements critical to the itiology of these flash chip-
controler aspects of flash memory?
Respectfully,
Tim Scott, Paducah, Ky
Hi, Tim,
Yes, MicroOS™ could.
Best regards,
Robert
Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President
e.Digital Corporation | 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San Diego, California 92127
| p: 858.304.3016 ext. 205 | f: 858.304.3023 | [email protected]
``````````````````````````````````````````````
Dear Robert:
We see MicroOS is termed a software and hardware solution. Could the two be combined in the
future to augment our own unique flash controler based microprocessor vs putting it on someone-
elses chip; a solution which achieves superior functions over the current competition? Possibly
with a partner?
Respectfully,
Tim Scott, Paducah, Ky
From: Robert Putnam <[email protected]> View ContactAdd to Address Book | Block SenderFull
HeaderReply To:
To:"[email protected]" <[email protected]>Cc:
Bcc:
Sent: Tue, May 04, 2010 06:19 PMDownload All
Hi, Tim,
MicroOS™ is a proprietary low level operating system that we developed and implemented in hardware
designs based on our digital video/audio platform (DVAP). Even though MicroOS was originally
developed for flash memory, it has proven to be very flexible and adaptable in enhancing devices
that contain hard drives and require significant content file management. MicroOS can also support
and manage multiple codecs and digital rights management systems on a single device. This
flexibility could be built into a chip if hardware designers and manufacturers wanted to run their
products on MicroOS.
Best regards,
Robert
Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President
e.Digital Corporation | 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San Diego, California 92127 | p: 858.304.3016
ext. 205 | f: 858.304.3023 | [email protected]
`````````````````````````````````````````
2
Dear Robert:
*Are the airlines that are currently using our eVUs able to input their own ancillary adds
themselves, or is their material sent into edigital to be incorporate then sent-out with content
updates?
*Are any of our customers using the credit-card swipe in any capasity?
*Do the airline passengers pay for eVU usage with cash, before boarding , or can they use the
eVU card-swipe for this also?
*Do our eVUs now have 'Powered by e.Digital' or something similar displayed somewhere on them?
Respectfully,,
Tim Scott, Paduach, Ky
Dear Robert:
*When airlines test different portable-IFEs; is it conceivable they would test several different
IFE brands during same time-span but perhaps on differing flights/routes?
Respectfully,,
Tim Scott, Paduach, Ky
Dear Robert:
I have a question about our 737 patent that I hope can clarify; it pertains to identifying and
marking a bad segment to initiate the beginning point for a new message.
*Does the word segments of patent 737, claim 6, line (b)...represent an erase block, or a
read/write block?
Respectfully,,
Tim Scott, Paduach, Ky
From: Robert Putnam <[email protected]> View ContactAdd to Address Book | Block SenderFull
HeaderReply To:
To:"[email protected]" <[email protected]>Cc:
Bcc:
Sent: Mon, May 10, 2010 05:35 PMDownload All
Hi, Tim,
We load all the content and ads for our airline customers. Our direct airline customers do not rent
the eVUs; they supply them to their business and first class passengers. Many of Mezzo’s customers
rent them to their passengers, however we are not aware of any eVU airline customer currently using
the credit card feature. Most airlines don’t share their trial test procedures.
A stylized Powered by e.Digital is on the back of eVU.
The word, “segments” in the patent, claim and line in question is not limited to an erase block.
Best regards,
Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President
e.Digital Corporation | 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San Diego, California 92127 | p: 858.304.3016
ext. 205 | f: 858.304.3023 | [email protected]
Dear Robert -
Please allow me to restructure this question... Trying to understand how we may differ and have
advantages from other processes.
*Specifically, can claim 6 line (b) of patent 737 when marking bad segments under a read/write
block logical format size....salvage the balance of the erase block(array) , or would the whole
array be marked dead?
Respectfully,
Tim
Hi, Tim,
It's my understanding that the marking of defective memory segments is not
limited to the whole array.
Best regards,
Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President
e.Digital Corporation | 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San Diego, California 92127 | p: 858.304.3016
ext. 205 | f: 858.304.3023 | [email protected]
posted on Jul 01, 10 07:16PM Use the IP Check tool [?]
Dear Robert
* Were all of our five flash patents utilized in the FlashBack Voice Recorder?
If not which was left out -
Respectully,
Tim Scott, Paducah Ky
From: Robert Putnam <[email protected]> View ContactAdd to Contacts | Invite Sender | Block
SenderFull HeaderReply To:
To:"[email protected]" <[email protected]>Cc:
Bcc:
Sent: Thu, Jul 01, 2010 06:11 PMDownload All |
Yes
Best regards,
Robert
Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President
Dear Robert:
This statement from an IP blog has me confused. Will both sides have to agree on an independent
'expert' to exemplify the validity of the patents to present to and help the judge make a
determination after all evidence is presented; or is it, to each-his-own; meaning we have our
expert/s and they have theirs and both try to make best arguments then the judge rules on those.?
''My answer is , An intellectual property expert during Markman hearing as a consulting expert can
evaluate the strength of the patents in question and assist the attorney in determining the best
strategy for any license negotiations. This expert or experts will use various patent databases and
patent files that detail the history of the patent prosecution to make a determination as to the
validity of the patents, the likelihood of actual infringement, and suggest the strategy.''
Respectfully,
Tim
From: Robert Putnam <[email protected]> View ContactAdd to Contacts | Invite Sender | Block
SenderFull HeaderReply To:
To:"[email protected]" <[email protected]>Cc:
Bcc:
Sent: Thu, Jul 08, 2010 01:11 PMDownload All |
Each side has their own expert.
Best regards,
Robert
Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President
Dear Robert:
Will Ron Maltiel be one of our experts to help in discovery, or will he only be utilized if we go
to trial?
Sincerely,
Tim
From: Robert Putnam <[email protected]> View ContactAdd to Contacts | Invite Sender | Block
SenderFull HeaderReply To:
To:"[email protected]" <[email protected]>Cc:
Bcc:
Sent: Thu, Jul 08, 2010 03:14 PMDownload All | Tim,
This is confidential information. Thank you for your understanding and continued support.
Best regards,
Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President
Dear Robert - sent 8-9-10
e.Digital told its shareholders that we would get more information 'later this year' on the new
upgraded eVU system you were planning last Fall/Spring-10.
Now that you have changed directives and only plan a newer/sleeker eVU design with hardware-mods;
will we still get to see-it in action or get more information in 2010?
Respectfully,
Tim
Hi, Tim,
Per our August 4th press release, should IFE business conditions improve or we partner outside of
portable IFE, we can rapidly complete and release the next generation upgrade.
Best regards,
Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President
e.Digital Corporation | 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San Diego, California 92127 | p: 858.304.3016
ext. 205 | f: 858.304.3023 | [email protected]
From: tim scott <[email protected]>Add to Contacts
To: Robert Putnam <[email protected]> 8-11-10
I remember a few years back our proxy materil stated how many applicable airlines there are in the
world.
Do you remember the number?
respectfully,
tim
Hi Tim
Even though there are hundreds of airlines, including, cargo, transport, charter and other
specialized air carriers, there are approximately 150 airlines that we consider prime potential
eVU™ customers.
Best regards,
Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President
e.Digital Corporation | 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San Diego, California 92127 | p: 858.304.3016
ext. 205 | f: 858.304.3023 | [email protected]
Morning Robert, Note: question sent @ 10:19 AM CA time, reply received @ 10:49 AM.
With reference to the recent Srilankan eVU order, as well as past such PR's of other customers, is
the quantity sold, the unit price and profit margin per unit, considered company confidential, and
if so, can you provide a brief reasoning why e.Digital does not make such information public?
Thank you,
EDIG JOE
Hi, Joe,
Two main reasons: 1) Our competitors don't provide any of this information and, 2) Most of our
airline customers do not want the size of their orders (units ordered and dollar amounts) disclosed
in our press releases.
Best regards,
Robert
Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President
sky56 - posted on Oct 23, 09 02:15PM
I asked this question in Aug.
Response from RP-
Cross licensing helps facilitate settlements and builds our base of intellectual property (IP). Due to the confidentiality terms in the licensing and settlement agreements, the only information we can provide has been/will be issued through press releases and our SEC filings. How we use the cross licensed IP will be made public when we utilize it in our business and/or product offerings.
DABOSS - Tier 1 vs Tier 2
posted on Mar 11, 10 07:57PM
A bit of clarity as we work through the process....
Per our earlier e-mail exchange, as we explained in the 2008 shareholders meeting, tier one filings
are being directed at companies we believe infringe mainly on key claims within the '774 patent
whereas tier two cases are expected to be filed against companies we believe infringe on specific
claims within the Flash-R™ patent portfolio pertaining to fundamental techniques in utilizing flash
memory (embedded or removable). The type of companies that we expect to file against in tier two
suits will be different from our tier one suits.
Best regards,
Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President
northtocool - e-mail from RP
posted on Jan 05, 10 03:18PM
Thank you for your e-mail, Mark. The current round of filings are focused on our U.S. Patent 5.491,774 relating to the use of flash memory in portable recording devices. U.S. Patents 5,787,445 and 5,839,108 relate to MicroOS™ and flash memory and are expected to figure more prominently in future filings.
Best regards,
Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President
DABOSS - posted on Jul 01, 10 12:41PM
I asked if a Markman ruling carries over into the later rounds of lawsuits or does it have to be
revisited with each group of subsequent filings.
Here is the response:
It is our understanding that the Markman process results in definitive rulings by a Federal Court
regarding the meaning of specific claim terms within a patent (or patents). Once a Federal Court
has issued its Markman rulings, it becomes difficult to vary from those meanings and in most cases
there are no further claim constructions undertaken. Generally, the original rulings carry over to
subsequent defendants.
Best regards,
Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President
DRVEN - Sent 4-28-09
Dear Robert,
Let me congratulate you and the others in the management team for the recent court victory. We all
have been hoping for a favorable outcome. I have a number of questions and I would be very obliged
if you would answer them, or at least as many as you feel you are able to without compromising the
plans of the company.
1. The recently acquired EFB by IMS reminds us all that competition never sleeps. This acquisition
provided them with a new product and a new channel of placing their products in the airline
industry. Do we in Edig have an answer to such moves?
2. Does this mean that we lose our ranking in the industry?
3. How does the quality of our product measure up against the competition?
4. How does Edig’s sale efforts compare to that of our competition?
5. How many people are involved in sales? Whatever the number might be, do we have an adequate
number to do the required job? If not, why not since now the company seems to have adequate
resources to hire more people? Who has replaced Mr. Falk?
6. Why does IMS appear to be so successful in placing its products even under the most trying
circumstances of the present economic environment?
7. How does Edig plan on using the increased revenues?
8. Is our engineering personnel adequate to stay competitive in the business of technological
innovation? How many engineers do we have at this time?
9. Does the management have any plans to revise the business plan and become a technology firm
living thereby on fees derived from licensing its technology? Ranbo has done this much but their
engineering department has far more engineers than we do.
10. Could you please guide us shareholders in regard to future projected sales?
11. Is there any conflict of interest between DM and Edig in view of the fact that their goals
might be diverging? More explicitly: In the short-run both companies would like easy and fast
settlements; Edig needs working capital and MD would like inexpensive settlements. But in the long
run Edig would like big settlements that might entail large outlays of time and money and DM might
not want to engage in protracted and expensive court battles. In this case what is management’s
strategy?
I will be grateful if you try to answer any (preferably all) questions.
Thank you very much in advance
Sincerely Yours
RP's reply
posted on Apr 29, 09 08:08AM
Thank you for your e-mail, Dr. Per our press releases and SEC filings, our business strategy is to
market our eVU™ products and services to U.S. and international airlines, other companies in the
travel and leisure industry, and to healthcare organizations. We employ both direct sales to
customers and sales through value added resellers that provide marketing, logistic and/or content
services to customers. We are also commercializing our Flash-R™ patent portfolio through licensing
and we are pursuing enforcement by litigating against those who may be infringing our patents. Our
international legal firm, Duane Morris LLP, is handling our patent enforcement matters on a
contingent fee basis. We’re pleased to have favorably licensed and settled six of the eight cases
that initiated our intellectual property monetization efforts, with more filings being prepared.
Since comments we make (either in company communications, SEC filings, or individual e-mail
responses that get posted on Internet chat boards) are scrutinized by opposing attorneys and the
companies they represent, we believe it is in the best interest of e.Digital and its shareholders
that we keep our IP monetization strategies confidential so that our words are not used against us
during settlement discussions and/or litigation. The same holds true regarding providing greater
detail to our competition on growing our eVU business.
We believe our eVU system is the best dedicated portable IFE device in the industry. As to our
“ranking” in the portable IFE industry, none of our competitors provide financial results other
than unverified claims of “doubling” their business, etc. Suffice it to say, we believe we’re one
of the leaders. As we stated in our press release of January 21, 2009, with the recent and expected
influx of new licensing revenues, we are in a better position to pursue business opportunities and
partnerships in the medical industry, and in other segments of the travel and leisure industry.
Fred Falk’s experience in building and managing partnering and licensing relationships align with
the Company’s strategy to grow its business through mutually beneficial partnering arrangements
rather than through building and paying for an internal sales team. We also anticipate a successful
resolution of the digEcor lawsuit will greatly benefit our efforts to grow the eVU business.
We have a creative, dedicated engineering team that has successfully designed several products
based on our proprietary digital video/audio platform, and we believe they will continue to keep us
ahead of the technological innovation curve.
Thank you for your continued support.
Best regards,
Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President
e.Digital Corporation | 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San Diego, California 92127
| p: 858.304.3016 ext. 205 | f: 858.304.3023 | [email protected]